Swapna v. Deshraj

Filing 57

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denying 54 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7

ARUNASREE SWAPNA,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No.16-cv-05482-JSC

v.
UDAY KRISHNA DESHRAJ,
Defendant.

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Re: Dkt. No. 54

12
13

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s emergency motion for appointment of counsel wherein

14

she seeks counsel to represent her for purposes of taking Defendant’s deposition. (Dkt. No. 54.)

15

To obtain appointment of pro bono counsel, a litigant must be proceeding in forma pauperis

16

(“IFP”) and lack the financial resources to retain counsel. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965,

17

970 (9th Cir. 2009) (“a court may under ‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint counsel for indigent

18

civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)”). Plaintiff here is neither proceeding IFP nor

19

has she demonstrated that she lacks the financial resources to retain counsel. To the contrary,

20

Plaintiff previously paid the filing fee and had retained counsel until that counsel was relieved for

21

reasons unrelated to Plaintiff’s ability to pay for their representation. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 33.) Further,

22

while the forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, does not define what constitutes insufficient

23

assets to constitute indigence, “a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some

24

particularity, definiteness and certainty.” See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th

25

Cir. 2015) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Because Plaintiff has not alleged poverty

26

with any particularity, she is not entitled to IFP status and thus may not obtain appointment of pro

27

bono counsel. Her motion for appointment of counsel is therefore DENIED.

28

However, the Court notes that Defendant Uday Krishna Desjraj has sought leave to proceed

1

pro se in this action as well and his attorney has simultaneously moved to withdraw. (Dkt. No. 55.)

2

This motion has been granted by separate order. (Dkt. No. 56.) Given the nature of the allegations in

3

this action, the Court agrees that the parties deposing each other without the benefit of counsel could

4

be challenging and thus resets the previously scheduled deposition dates until after the parties’ October

5

25, 2017 settlement conference with Magistrate Judge James. If necessary, Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s

6

depositions will occur on October 26 and October 27, respectively, in the Court’s jury room.

7

This Order disposes of Docket No. 54.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 29, 2017

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

13

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2